Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chomsky: We've Never Had Capitalism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 7:55:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 8:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think Chomsky is one of the most overrated "luminaries" of all time.

He's real fond of plays on words.

2:00 - end
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 1:45:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 8:02:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think Chomsky is one of the most overrated "luminaries" of all time.

He's real fond of plays on words.

2:00 - end



I rather like Chomsky, myself.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 4:14:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 8:02:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think Chomsky is one of the most overrated "luminaries" of all time.

He's real fond of plays on words.

2:00 - end



Applause to you PL, couldn't agree more. I never understood why a linguist has some special status in "the market place of ideas". People really fall over each other holding him up as the pillar of all political and intellectual thought; where he is just another voice among many in my opinion.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 1:46:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 4:14:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/30/2011 8:02:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think Chomsky is one of the most overrated "luminaries" of all time.

He's real fond of plays on words.

2:00 - end



Applause to you PL, couldn't agree more. I never understood why a linguist has some special status in "the market place of ideas". People really fall over each other holding him up as the pillar of all political and intellectual thought; where he is just another voice among many in my opinion.

Tell me you guys are both joking. The guy not only single-handedly remodelled linguistics (which itself had pretty far reaching implications in many different areas in itself) but has dominated political analysis for the best part of 50 years, with Manufacturing Consent one of the finest political works in print.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 1:52:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 1:46:28 PM, unitedandy wrote:

but has dominated political analysis for the best part of 50 years,

The "bad things are bad" theory of politics is pretty convincing.

with Manufacturing Consent one of the finest political works in print.

Chomsky figured out that the state acts in its own interest, and may use shills to this end. What a surprise.

Its only a notable book if you walk around being told what to think.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 4:37:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tell me you guys are both joking.:

I could tell you that, but then I'd be lying.

The guy not only single-handedly remodelled linguistics:

You're right, and this is his accomplishment to the world.

has dominated political analysis for the best part of 50 years, with Manufacturing Consent one of the finest political works in print.:

And this is where we disagree. What exactly has Chomsky said, politically, that distinguishes him from the myriad of socialist hacks through the years?

I wish he would just stay with linguistics and not be such a liberal blowhard.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 5:02:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And the only reason any of you think Chomsky revolutionized linguistics is because they say he did. No one knows anything about the field. It could be like how Keynes revolutionized economics - total crap.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 6:06:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 5:02:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
And the only reason any of you think Chomsky revolutionized linguistics is because they say he did. No one knows anything about the field. It could be like how Keynes revolutionized economics - total crap.

Well, considering I studied Critical Discourse Analysis with one of the leading British linguistics at university, I would like to think I know more than the average bear when it comes to certain parts of linguistics. Yeah, and like it or not, but Keynesianism was economic orthodoxy until the 1970s as well, until monetarism became all the rage with the collapse of economic demand-management, so even your analogy seems wrong.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 6:32:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 4:37:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Tell me you guys are both joking.:

I could tell you that, but then I'd be lying.

The guy not only single-handedly remodelled linguistics:

You're right, and this is his accomplishment to the world.

has dominated political analysis for the best part of 50 years, with Manufacturing Consent one of the finest political works in print.:

And this is where we disagree. What exactly has Chomsky said, politically, that distinguishes him from the myriad of socialist hacks through the years?

I wish he would just stay with linguistics and not be such a liberal blowhard.

I think his criticism of American foreign policy, for example, is pretty extensive, as is his institutional analysis of the media. His propaganda model in Manufacturing Consent is the best example of this. The fact that you think he is a socialist however shows either a knee-jerk reaction to (wrongly) label a break from the neo-liberal orthodoxy as "socialist", or a consistent misdiagnosis of Chomsky's politics. The claim that he is a "liberal" at all (let alone being so while simultaneously advocating socialism, in your view) is just wrong as well. He's as anarchist who criticises what is called the liberal stance as the horizon of what is acceptable in American politics, arguing in many cases that it is much more restrictive than Conservatism (or at least, what is called conservatism).

There are legitimate gripes one can have with Chomsky (his treatment of economics at times, for example), but calling "the world's most important intellectual" a hack seemingly because he dares to be on the left is just silly.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 6:56:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 6:06:54 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 5:02:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
Chomsky [...] linguistics

Critical Discourse Analysis

Except the two aren't related. But hey.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 9:00:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"In all societies, public opinion is determined by the intellectual classes,
the opinion moulders of society. For most people neither originate nor
disseminate ideas and concepts; on the contrary, they tend to adopt those
ideas promulgated by the professional intellectual classes, the professional
dealers in ideas. Now, throughout history, as we shall see further below,
despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services
of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society."

"To insure the dominance of the new statism over public opinion, to
insure that the public's consent would be engineered, the governments of
the Western world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
moved to seize control over education, over the minds of men: over the
universities, and over general education through compulsory school
attendance laws and a network of public schools."

Murray Rothbard, 1973

Chomsky was only 15 years late on his painfully obvious revelation that institutions operate according to what their incentives are.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 9:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 6:06:54 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 5:02:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
And the only reason any of you think Chomsky revolutionized linguistics is because they say he did. No one knows anything about the field. It could be like how Keynes revolutionized economics - total crap.

Well, considering I studied Critical Discourse Analysis with one of the leading British linguistics at university, I would like to think I know more than the average bear when it comes to certain parts of linguistics.

Since its an untestable field we'll never know if your ability to navigate arcane theories is actually counts as "understanding".

Yeah, and like it or not, but Keynesianism was economic orthodoxy until the 1970s as well, until monetarism became all the rage with the collapse of economic demand-management, so even your analogy seems wrong.

Red herring. "Influential" =/= "Awesome".

Let's use an even stronger example. The food pyramid you grew up with is very very influential. It was in thousands and thousands of classrooms and doctor's offices all through the 90's. It has a 10:1 ratio of carbs:protein. It is a recipe for diabetes. Whoops. But I guess whoever came up with it deserves credit and respect because they were influential.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:28:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 6:32:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 4:37:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fact that you think he is a socialist however shows either a knee-jerk reaction to (wrongly) label a break from the neo-liberal orthodoxy as "socialist", or a consistent misdiagnosis of Chomsky's politics. The claim that he is a "liberal" at all (let alone being so while simultaneously advocating socialism, in your view) is just wrong as well. He's as anarchist who criticises what is called the liberal stance as the horizon of what is acceptable in American politics, arguing in many cases that it is much more restrictive than Conservatism (or at least, what is called conservatism).

Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist: https://secure.wikimedia.org... I agree he is not a progressive liberal. However, Chomsky argues state regulation must be used for the public good to reign in capitalism, which as he calls himself an anarchist is simply contradictory, let alone bound to fail. I do agree Chomsky provides many great critiques of US foreign policy and the nature of mass media.


There are legitimate gripes one can have with Chomsky (his treatment of economics at times, for example), but calling "the world's most important intellectual" a hack seemingly because he dares to be on the left is just silly.

Who says he's the "world's most important intellectual"?
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:47:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 9:00:37 PM, Grape wrote:
"In all societies, public opinion is determined by the intellectual classes,
the opinion moulders of society. For most people neither originate nor
disseminate ideas and concepts; on the contrary, they tend to adopt those
ideas promulgated by the professional intellectual classes, the professional
dealers in ideas. Now, throughout history, as we shall see further below,
despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services
of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society."

"To insure the dominance of the new statism over public opinion, to
insure that the public's consent would be engineered, the governments of
the Western world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
moved to seize control over education, over the minds of men: over the
universities, and over general education through compulsory school
attendance laws and a network of public schools."

Murray Rothbard, 1973

Chomsky was only 15 years late on his painfully obvious revelation that institutions operate according to what their incentives are.

Its because Rothbard said: "Government is bad", which people had to think about. Chomsky's contribution was that "Bad government is bad". This resonates much more easily.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 8:20:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 8:02:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think Chomsky is one of the most overrated "luminaries" of all time.

You also seem to think Penn Jillette is the source of all wisdom though so...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 11:51:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 6:56:40 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/31/2011 6:06:54 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 5:02:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
Chomsky [...] linguistics

Critical Discourse Analysis

Except the two aren't related. But hey.

Trying to do CDA without a working knowledge of linguistics would be like trying to look for someone's name in a Chinese phonebook without a working knowledge of Chinese.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 11:58:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 11:51:07 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 6:56:40 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/31/2011 6:06:54 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 5:02:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
Chomsky [...] linguistics

Critical Discourse Analysis

Except the two aren't related. But hey.

Trying to do CDA
I don't know what that is.

without a working knowledge of linguistics would be like trying to look for someone's name in a Chinese phonebook without a working knowledge of Chinese.

Actually that would be pretty easy. All you have to do is match the characters. You don't have to know what they mean or even what they sound like.

This is how me and my friends learned how to read japanese pokemon cards. We didn't take any japanese.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 12:06:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:28:33 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 5/31/2011 6:32:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 4:37:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fact that you think he is a socialist however shows either a knee-jerk reaction to (wrongly) label a break from the neo-liberal orthodoxy as "socialist", or a consistent misdiagnosis of Chomsky's politics. The claim that he is a "liberal" at all (let alone being so while simultaneously advocating socialism, in your view) is just wrong as well. He's as anarchist who criticises what is called the liberal stance as the horizon of what is acceptable in American politics, arguing in many cases that it is much more restrictive than Conservatism (or at least, what is called conservatism).

Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist: https://secure.wikimedia.org... I agree he is not a progressive liberal. However, Chomsky argues state regulation must be used for the public good to reign in capitalism, which as he calls himself an anarchist is simply contradictory, let alone bound to fail. I do agree Chomsky provides many great critiques of US foreign policy and the nature of mass media.


There are legitimate gripes one can have with Chomsky (his treatment of economics at times, for example), but calling "the world's most important intellectual" a hack seemingly because he dares to be on the left is just silly.

Who says he's the "world's most important intellectual"?

Well libertarian socialism is a lot different from socialism, but fair enough. As far as being the most important intellectual, he topped the prospect poll in 2005, and was 11 in 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org.... Like yourself, I don't agree with Chomsky on everything, but I think for folks here to deny that he's a pretty solid thinker is non-sensical.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 12:14:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 12:06:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 6/1/2011 1:28:33 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 5/31/2011 6:32:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 4:37:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fact that you think he is a socialist however shows either a knee-jerk reaction to (wrongly) label a break from the neo-liberal orthodoxy as "socialist", or a consistent misdiagnosis of Chomsky's politics. The claim that he is a "liberal" at all (let alone being so while simultaneously advocating socialism, in your view) is just wrong as well. He's as anarchist who criticises what is called the liberal stance as the horizon of what is acceptable in American politics, arguing in many cases that it is much more restrictive than Conservatism (or at least, what is called conservatism).

Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist: https://secure.wikimedia.org... I agree he is not a progressive liberal. However, Chomsky argues state regulation must be used for the public good to reign in capitalism, which as he calls himself an anarchist is simply contradictory, let alone bound to fail. I do agree Chomsky provides many great critiques of US foreign policy and the nature of mass media.


There are legitimate gripes one can have with Chomsky (his treatment of economics at times, for example), but calling "the world's most important intellectual" a hack seemingly because he dares to be on the left is just silly.

Who says he's the "world's most important intellectual"?

Well libertarian socialism is a lot different from socialism
Yeah, the second one might actually have a way to stop me from forming a business. ^_^

As far as being the most important intellectual, he topped the prospect poll in 2005, and was 11 in 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org....
Ad populum.

but I think for folks here to deny that he's a pretty solid thinker is non-sensical.
I know that to assert something like that without evidence is nonsensical. BoP.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 2:13:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 12:14:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/1/2011 12:06:16 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 6/1/2011 1:28:33 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 5/31/2011 6:32:08 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 5/31/2011 4:37:16 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The fact that you think he is a socialist however shows either a knee-jerk reaction to (wrongly) label a break from the neo-liberal orthodoxy as "socialist", or a consistent misdiagnosis of Chomsky's politics. The claim that he is a "liberal" at all (let alone being so while simultaneously advocating socialism, in your view) is just wrong as well. He's as anarchist who criticises what is called the liberal stance as the horizon of what is acceptable in American politics, arguing in many cases that it is much more restrictive than Conservatism (or at least, what is called conservatism).

Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist: https://secure.wikimedia.org... I agree he is not a progressive liberal. However, Chomsky argues state regulation must be used for the public good to reign in capitalism, which as he calls himself an anarchist is simply contradictory, let alone bound to fail. I do agree Chomsky provides many great critiques of US foreign policy and the nature of mass media.


There are legitimate gripes one can have with Chomsky (his treatment of economics at times, for example), but calling "the world's most important intellectual" a hack seemingly because he dares to be on the left is just silly.

Who says he's the "world's most important intellectual"?

Well libertarian socialism is a lot different from socialism
Yeah, the second one might actually have a way to stop me from forming a business. ^_^

As far as being the most important intellectual, he topped the prospect poll in 2005, and was 11 in 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org....
Ad populum.

but I think for folks here to deny that he's a pretty solid thinker is non-sensical.
I know that to assert something like that without evidence is nonsensical. BoP.

I don't really think it's an ad populum to answer a question like the one I did by providing the link I gave. The question was WHO calls Chomsky the most important public intellectual, not necessarily whether he is or not (although I think it's pretty obvious that he is). As far as your other comments go, there's no BoP to meet, because I don't really see this as a debate, but if it were, I think the folk who were arguing that Chomsky is a hack or such nonsense would have the BoP, in the same way that a conspiracy theorist has the BoP, but then again, I don't see the forums as demanding the same effort as debates (and you obviously do as well, given your short response).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 2:24:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

I don't really think it's an ad populum to answer a question like the one I did by providing the link I gave. The question was WHO calls Chomsky the most important public intellectual, not necessarily whether he is or not
Your ORIGINAL assertion was that. Who is a side issue.

As far as your other comments go, there's no BoP to meet, because I don't really see this as a debate
Burden of proof isn't a debate formality, it's a requirement of reasoning, without which we are all required to believe that there will be a unicorn on the 512,999th planet from us in the angle for which the Earth's North Pole is a vertex and Alpha Centauri's diameter goes from one ray to the other, as of tomorrow at noon.

but if it were, I think the folk who were arguing that Chomsky is a hack or such nonsense would have the BoP, in the same way that a conspiracy theorist has the BoP
A conspiracy theorist's position isn't "These people are not competent, tell me why they ARE" but "These people are conspiring to do this, tell me why the AREN'T." A person arguing for the competence of Chomsky has BoP as they are making the positive assertion. I'm asking you to tell me why he IS competent, you ask someone to tell why he is NOT-- you lose that confrontation unless you raise evidence.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 3:06:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 2:24:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I don't really think it's an ad populum to answer a question like the one I did by providing the link I gave. The question was WHO calls Chomsky the most important public intellectual, not necessarily whether he is or not
Your ORIGINAL assertion was that. Who is a side issue.

As far as your other comments go, there's no BoP to meet, because I don't really see this as a debate
Burden of proof isn't a debate formality, it's a requirement of reasoning, without which we are all required to believe that there will be a unicorn on the 512,999th planet from us in the angle for which the Earth's North Pole is a vertex and Alpha Centauri's diameter goes from one ray to the other, as of tomorrow at noon.

but if it were, I think the folk who were arguing that Chomsky is a hack or such nonsense would have the BoP, in the same way that a conspiracy theorist has the BoP
A conspiracy theorist's position isn't "These people are not competent, tell me why they ARE" but "These people are conspiring to do this, tell me why the AREN'T." A person arguing for the competence of Chomsky has BoP as they are making the positive assertion. I'm asking you to tell me why he IS competent, you ask someone to tell why he is NOT-- you lose that confrontation unless you raise evidence.

Nope, the reason that I gave for Chomsky being considered a respected scholar was this like his contribution to linguistics, his criticism of American foreign policy and so on. The question that was asked was WHO considered Chomsky one of the most important intellectuals, not how one can determine this (although I don't think it's particularly controversial to partly support one's position on expert opinion). As far as BoP goes, I've given a couple of areas which highlight Chomsky as a "competent" authority on things like politics (the propaganda model and so on).
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:00:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 11:51:07 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Trying to do CDA without a working knowledge of linguistics would be like trying to look for someone's name in a Chinese phonebook without a working knowledge of Chinese.

Chomsky's work on linguistics has 0, as in nothing, as in nada, to do with DA and CA and TA and their ilk. Chomsky's work was in the neurology of grammar. Nothing to do with constructions of meanings from text.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 8:43:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nope, the reason that I gave for Chomsky being considered a respected scholar was this like his contribution to linguistics
I'm a respectable scholar because of my contribution to linguistics.
I have offered exactly as much proof of this assertion about myself as you have offered about Chomsky. ^_^.

his criticism of American foreign policy
Respectable scholarship is defined as "Critical of American Foreign Policy?"

(although I don't think it's particularly controversial to partly support one's position on expert opinion)
Your position is "His opinion is expert." It is a circular argument to support that by claiming he is an expert-- what agreed-upon experts have you cited?

As far as BoP goes, I've given a couple of areas which highlight Chomsky as a "competent" authority on things like politics (the propaganda model and so on).
Areas do not establish authority. If I said Richard Feynman was a helluva scientist, I wouldn't win when you looked at me funny by babbling "Quantum physics." I'd have to tell you what he did, substantially, and demonstrate that he did it. "Revolutionized the field" is not substantial.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:04:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 7:00:44 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/1/2011 11:51:07 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Trying to do CDA without a working knowledge of linguistics would be like trying to look for someone's name in a Chinese phonebook without a working knowledge of Chinese.

Chomsky's work on linguistics has 0, as in nothing, as in nada, to do with DA and CA and TA and their ilk. Chomsky's work was in the neurology of grammar. Nothing to do with constructions of meanings from text.

Again, if you are to approach this subject, you have to have some kind of commitment to things like the spontaneity of language, the nature of language acquisition, ect before one can even begin to try to analyse text. Anyone trying to do CDA must have (at the very least) an awareness of things like UG before they wade in to CDA. Also, Chomsky's work (along with van Dijk's) provides one of best studies regarding the propagation of elitist ideology from his institutional analysis of the media - ergo, CDA.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 8:43:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Nope, the reason that I gave for Chomsky being considered a respected scholar was this like his contribution to linguistics
I'm a respectable scholar because of my contribution to linguistics.
I have offered exactly as much proof of this assertion about myself as you have offered about Chomsky. ^_^.

his criticism of American foreign policy
Respectable scholarship is defined as "Critical of American Foreign Policy?"

(although I don't think it's particularly controversial to partly support one's position on expert opinion)
Your position is "His opinion is expert." It is a circular argument to support that by claiming he is an expert-- what agreed-upon experts have you cited?

As far as BoP goes, I've given a couple of areas which highlight Chomsky as a "competent" authority on things like politics (the propaganda model and so on).
Areas do not establish authority. If I said Richard Feynman was a helluva scientist, I wouldn't win when you looked at me funny by babbling "Quantum physics." I'd have to tell you what he did, substantially, and demonstrate that he did it. "Revolutionized the field" is not substantial.

TBH, I'm not sure what kind of evidence your looking for, but the fact that he's the most cited living author is probably not because he's an irrelevant hack. Not that it will make any difference but how about the dictionary as an "agreed upon expert".

" Arising from his dissertation, his book Syntactic Structures is widely regarded as the most significant contribution to linguistics of the second half of the 20th century." (Oxford dictionary of philosophy,2005, p61)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:45:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
TBH, I'm not sure what kind of evidence your looking for, but the fact that he's the most cited living author is probably not because he's an irrelevant hack.
Interesting variant on ad populum there.

Not that it will make any difference but how about the dictionary as an "agreed upon expert".
I think not.

Arising from his dissertation, his book Syntactic Structures is widely regarded as the most significant contribution to linguistics of the second half of the 20th century." (Oxford dictionary of philosophy,2005, p61)"
That's neither lexical nor even encyclopedic information, what's it doing there? It's just the opinion of the authors of a so-called dictionary, with no accompanying argument.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 7:07:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:45:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
TBH, I'm not sure what kind of evidence your looking for, but the fact that he's the most cited living author is probably not because he's an irrelevant hack.
Interesting variant on ad populum there.

Not that it will make any difference but how about the dictionary as an "agreed upon expert".
I think not.

Arising from his dissertation, his book Syntactic Structures is widely regarded as the most significant contribution to linguistics of the second half of the 20th century." (Oxford dictionary of philosophy,2005, p61)"
That's neither lexical nor even encyclopedic information, what's it doing there? It's just the opinion of the authors of a so-called dictionary, with no accompanying argument.

See, you ask for an expert, and then accuse me of ad populum when I happen to mention that he is the most cited author in the world, and then you basically accuse me of an appeal to authority when I give what seems to me to be a pretty unbiased source of information (it's a bloody dictionary for crying out loud). The fact that it's in the dictionary is sort of a testament to how unbiased it is that Chomskyan linguistics became the dominant paradigm in the discipline, despite its criticisms now. You could find the same information on wikipedia (which describes him as one of the fathers of modern linguistics), or notice people like John Searle calling his work "one of the most remarkable intellectual achievements of the present era", and so on, or you could just ask a behaviourist. But I'm guessing that although you asked for an "agreed expert", I could probably pick anyone, and they wouldn't satisfy you at this point. As for explaining his contributions to linguistics in depth, this ain't going to happen. I ain't sitting here teaching someone linguistics. Life is too short.

I'll not go through the same for his influence in politics, because there's no excuse not to pick up and read Manufacturing Consent. Suffice to say that even critics of the left (if they are worth anything) will engage with folk like Chomsky, Zinn or even Pilger, rather than the phony left presented in the media, which might be why he's the most cited living author.